Nope. It doesn't. It's not the claim that matters, but the arguments behind the claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5
.... Despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and the government that funds them, these people are sharing their stories, and we are learning that a huge percentage of the children with autism also had documented reactions to vaccines.....

The quoted statement is the definition of conspiracy theories: trying to explain that an issue (autism rates in this case) is due to some group that is intentionally causing harm for a profit.

WOW!!!!! Did you guys catch that neat little trick???

Orangeorchids is truly an expert.

I NEVER said that there is any group intentionally causing harm for a profit. But orangeorchids was clever enough to make it appear as though I had.

Reread what I wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5
.... Despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and the government that funds them, these people are sharing their stories, and we are learning that a huge percentage of the children with autism also had documented reactions to vaccines.....

Let's see. The pharmaceutical industry does not report many of the adverse reactions during their own testing. The package inserts say, "Reactions include..." without listing some of the worst reactions, even when they are not uncommon reactions. The CDC agencies involved with safety checks on pharmaceuticals look the other way when there are problems; the Department of Health and Human Services issues gag orders whenever it compensates someone for a vaccine injury. Kathleen Sibelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, has asked that the media not quote anyone criticizing vaccine safety.

Yep, that sounds like the best efforts of both pharmaceutical industry and government.

Anybody see where I said that "autism is due to some group that is intentionally causing harm for a profit?"

Yeah, I don't see it either. Because I didn't say it.

Now let's reread the rest of orangeorchids' post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeorchids

This claim is done besides experts determining that there is no link between vaccines and autism. And since these experts have not confirmed the argument, the conclusion is that they must be part of the conspiracy as well (and probably so am I).

- fear of persecution. A lot of the members give an indication that they fear they are being singled out in this study. That argument is not exactly true. The study is about how some people are skeptical about science, and how the cognitive 'workings' seem to be independent of political ideology. The national geographic video had experts arguing that conspiracy theorists experience some form of paranoia when it comes to say, the government.

- a need for an EASY explanation. Also the NG video, it explains that one of the lures of conspiracy theories it that it provides an easy explanation to things, it gives them meaning. One doesn't have to think about it, simply point the finger. All things happen for a reason according to conspiracy theorists (although not all people that think that 'all things happen for a reason' are conspiracy theorists) and this helps explains many 'things' in life. There not being a group controlling events out there is a fearful thought for conspiracy theorists.

More putting words into the mouths of vaccine critics, more painting vaccine critics as paranoid delusionals who are desperate to believe in an easy explanation, more skillful diverting the focus to the opposition.

We don't need any more studies. It's already crystal-clear, based on what all the pro-vaccine people keep saying, over and over.

"Vaccines are generally extremely safe, and vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare," coupled with "vaccines should be mandated," and even "those who forego vaccines should be excluded from schools, fired from jobs in health care industries, charged more for group health insurance, and sued when others become ill."

There's your proof: pro-vaccine people believe that those who don't react adversely to vaccines are more important than those who do, simply because there are more who don't.

Um, no. By that logic I could say that everyone who refers to measles as a benign illness or comments on how measles deaths are rare in first world populations as a reason why fear of measles shouldn't be a reason for vaccinating them must obviously value the lives of the majority who can survive them and recover without major complication over that of the minority who can't/don't.

In fact, I think if such a survey were to be conducted, it might even got the other way and show a correlation between anti-vax and the idea that some lives are worth more. And that is not because anit-vaxers are evil or anything like that, but because the typical antivaxer and the typical vaxer both agree that all lives are precious and have equal value an just disagree on what is the safest/best way to protect each individual life. So the results of the survey would be pretty equal... except then you've got a small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical anti-vaccine sentiment (and may not even all believe that vaccines are dangerous) who think that by preventing the spread of "normal" childhood diseases such as measles we are saving lives of people who would succumb to it and that is a bad thing because overall it is getting in the way of natural selection and weakening the humans species as a whole. It's just a matter of if there are enough of those people saying don't vax because it weakens our species to skew things or not.

I have seen that argument made before, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen it here, and again, it is not typical of the anti-vaccine movement, just something that could push the results of such a survey that way.

Imagine for a second two kids, Suzy and Ben. If we had a crystal ball we'd know that if Suzy gets measles she will suffer serious complications that impact her entire life or maybe even kills her while if Ben gets the measles vaccine he will have a reaction that will impact his entire life or maybe even kill him. Neither of us is going to argue that either Ben or Suzy's life is more important or valuable. The thing we disagree on is any individual child is more likely to be a Ben or a Suzy, and what the safest option is for each individual child firstly and our society as a whole secondly.

Quote:

Good news, though (or not): that is changing. Because of the ever-increasing vaccine schedule, more and more people are actually having severe vaccine reactions, and the US Department of Health and Human Services is no longer able to keep the issue hushed and gag-ordered. 30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction. And by "sheer coincidence" (or not), 30 years ago, most people had never even heard of autism. Today, everyone knows at least one family whose child has profound autism. Despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and the government that funds them, these people are sharing their stories, and we are learning that a huge percentage of the children with autism also had documented reactions to vaccines.

Is that true of autism just thirty years ago? I was just five a the time, and I while I know at one point severely autistic kids would be quietly institutionalized, I had thought that those days were mostly over by thirty years ago. I can't remember when autism became a word everyone used or even when I first heard it/knew what it was.

In any case, "autism" may not have been around, but quirky kids who would today be labeled a on the spectrum certainly were. Also, I do remember some sad nasty jokes at the expense of kids who rode the short bus :( I don't remember ever having heard labels for them besides special ed/life skills classes and words which are too vile to repeat, and I'm fairly sure most of the adults around who weren't directly relate to teaching them didn't know that much about them other than thinking that something was wrong with them. I wonder how many of those kids were actually autistic?

Add me to the group that doesn't know anyone IRL who has had a serious vaccine reaction. Perhaps some people I know have had them/had kids with them and I just haven't heard about it... but how is that any different than it was thirty years ago? How is it that if I didn't know of anyone thirty years ago who had a vaccine reaction, that would mean that no one had had one, while if I don't know of anyone who has had one now, that just must mean that I am not hearing about one that have happened?

The big difference between now and then is that the Internet connects us to so many more people. I do have read about people's vaccine reactions through the internet that I never would heave heard of without the Internet. If measles were a common disease today, most kids would be miserable for a week or so then just fine, but for those who weren't, what effect do you think having their parents tell their stories on the internet for hundreds and thousand or ore to read have?

One last thing, I'm sure some will believe that if a person doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, then that person thinks groups, say government, never make bad decisions. That certainly is not true. I've seen some complaints here about skeptic websites, I thought I'd include an article on the documentary Inside Job (about the recent financial crisis). The author of the skeptic post thinks quite favorably about the documentary which directly implies the government as being partially responsible for the crisis.

The real issue in this paragraph is that it is entirely possible to believe that the government has made bad decisions, and is riddled with dishonesty and corruption. Hey, we only have to read today's headlines about the government shut-down to realize this! It does not follow that believing this--and talking about it--means that one is delusional, paranoid, or desperate to look for something to blame (orangeorchid's implied definition of "conspiracy theorist").

But orangeorchids is turning it inside-out with a double-negative to say, "It's not true that : if a person ISN'T a conspiracy theorist, they believe that the government is perfect and can't make bad decisions."

See that? It's like saying, "well, I'm NOT crazy, and I still think there can be bad decisions! But vaccines aren't one of them! So only crazy people believe that there are a problem with vaccines!"

Very skillful sleight-of-hand, there.

But let's make sure we keep the truth in sight: one can distrust and in fact criticize vaccines and not be paranoid, delusional, or looking for something to blame.

In fact, I'm finding that the people who tend to completely trust vaccines and the industry-funded flawed science supporting even the most unnecessary vaccines are the ones who tend to be delusional.

Um, no. By that logic I could say that everyone who refers to measles as a benign illness or comments on how measles deaths are rare in first world populations as a reason why fear of measles shouldn't be a reason for vaccinating them must obviously value the lives of the majority who can survive them and recover without major complication over that of the minority who can't/don't.

Is that true of autism just thirty years ago? I was just five a the time, and I while I know at one point severely autistic kids would be quietly institutionalized, I had thought that those days were mostly over by thirty years ago. I can't remember when autism became a word everyone used or even when I first heard it/knew what it was.

Severely autistic kids weren't quietly institutionalized at birth, you know. Nowadays, EARLY intervention is by age 2-3. Severely autistic children were part of families and neighborhoods for at least 2-3 years before being institutionalized.

In my elementary school, the one severely autistic child in the whole school district (in the whole neighborhood) was in our public school for a few months. He had transferred from another school in our district. Nobody knew what was wrong with him, only that something was very wrong, and the parents tried a different school, hoping that things would be better.

They weren't. He was finally diagnosed with autism, and ended up, yes, institutionalized.

But it wasn't a deep dark secret, where he was hidden away from birth.

Everybody knew.

And he was the only one in our town of 10,000.

Surprise, surprise. The autism rate back then was 1/10,000.

There were 2 kids in our school who, today, would have been diagnosed with Asperger's. One was a bit more severe, and she ended up going to a special school, which was mostly kids with Down Syndrome and/or severe learning delays, NOT autism symptoms, according to her parents. I am still in touch with her parents, as I was their babysitter. The other didn't fit in socially (was a textbook example of what we think of today as Asperger's), but did fine academically and remained in the public school system.

Were they teased? Yes. Kids were and are brutal. (So are adults, if it comes to that.) But so were kids who, even today, would not be considered to be on the autism spectrum.

Add me to the group that doesn't know anyone IRL who has had a serious vaccine reaction. Perhaps some people I know have had them/had kids with them and I just haven't heard about it... but how is that any different than it was thirty years ago? How is it that if I didn't know of anyone thirty years ago who had a vaccine reaction, that would mean that no one had had one, while if I don't know of anyone who has had one now, that just must mean that I am not hearing about one that have happened?

Actually, you pose a very good question.

I think that people did have serious vaccine reactions 30 years ago, but far, far fewer than today. And I think that in today's climate, talking about vaccine reactions amongst other parents is a very scary thing, because there is a concerted effort to keep unvaccinated children out of schools, and to blame them for outbreaks of disease, and to vilify their parents. That climate did NOT exist 30 years ago.

Since my children have medically documented reactions and resulting exemptions, I'm not afraid to talk about it. So others who have had reactions and/or who delay vaccines are not afraid to talk to me about it.

I think maybe I was jumping to conclusions by assuming everyone is aware that they know someone who has had a vaccine reaction.

I think that people did have serious vaccine reactions 30 years ago, but far, far fewer than today. And I think that in today's climate, talking about vaccine reactions amongst other parents is a very scary thing, because there is a concerted effort to keep unvaccinated children out of schools, and to blame them for outbreaks of disease, and to vilify their parents. That climate did NOT exist 30 years ago.

Since my children have medically documented reactions and resulting exemptions, I'm not afraid to talk about it. So others who have had reactions and/or who delay vaccines are not afraid to talk to me about it.

I think maybe I was jumping to conclusions by assuming everyone is aware that they know someone who has had a vaccine reaction.

Thanks for asking that question--it made me think a little harder.

I am one of those children who's vaccine damage went unnoticed. I had SPD as a very young child and absence seizures. My younger sister's wasn't; she had a severe reaction to the DTP at 4 months old (convulsions), and because my mother was convinced it was a vaccine reaction and the doctor didn't deny it, she was not vaccinated again until a teen when she got the rubella jab, but no antibodies when titres were measured when pregnant (two times). As a baby she suffered with severe GERD, and chronic ear infections leading to tubes and adenoid removal. I remember her constant snotty nose as a little one and her projectile vomiting as a baby - she would spit up across the room - my mother was always drenched. Unfortunately, this was made worse because she was formula fed, and my mother knew nothing about cutting out dairy or wheat back then.

t

"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio

In fact, I think if such a survey were to be conducted, it might even got the other way and show a correlation between anti-vax and the idea that some lives are worth more. And that is not because anit-vaxers are evil or anything like that, but because the typical antivaxer and the typical vaxer both agree that all lives are precious and have equal value an just disagree on what is the safest/best way to protect each individual life. So the results of the survey would be pretty equal... except then you've got a small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical anti-vaccine sentiment (and may not even all believe that vaccines are dangerous) who think that by preventing the spread of "normal" childhood diseases such as measles we are saving lives of people who would succumb to it and that is a bad thing because overall it is getting in the way of natural selection and weakening the humans species as a whole. It's just a matter of if there are enough of those people saying don't vax because it weakens our species to skew things or not.

I have seen that argument made before, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen it here, and again, it is not typical of the anti-vaccine movement, just something that could push the results of such a survey that way.

I have seen pro-vaxxers say the same thing, for what it is worth. I have seen posters (not on MDC) say that those who have a vaccine reaction are genetically weak and that vaccines weed out the weak. It goes both ways.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

except then you've got a small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical anti-vaccine sentiment

Why do the nasty eugenicists have to belong to the anti vaccine group? Is it possible there is a small percentage of nasty eugenicists from the pro side as well?

By the way, I have to chuckle. The fact that you even mention "eugenicists" sounds mighty conspiracy-ish of you! After all, I thought they all disappeared after WWII. Whenever I've brought up the topic in the past, I was always ridiculed and called a conspiracy theorist. I guess you're only considered a conspiracy theorist if you think there are eugenicists on a specific "side".

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport

except then you've got a small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical anti-vaccine sentiment

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird

Why do the nasty eugenicists have to belong to the anti vaccine group? Is it possible there is a small percentage of nasty eugenicists from the pro side as well?

By the way, I have to chuckle. The fact that you even mention "eugenicists" sounds mighty conspiracy-ish of you! After all, I thought they all disappeared after WWII. Whenever I've brought up the topic in the past, I was always ridiculed and called a conspiracy theorist. I guess you're only considered a conspiracy theorist if you think there are eugenicists on a specific "side".

Oh, my, I only just saw that little comment about "nasty eugenecists being in the anti-vaccine group."

Pers, I'm sorry, but I really think you forgot to mention the small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical pro-vaccine sentiment, who believe that the children who are disabled or killed by vaccines would have been disabled or died anyway even without vaccines.

Oh, wait, there were several pro-vaccine members here on MDC who said (incorrectly, I might add) that my children would doubtless have not been able to deal with VPDs anyway, so I had no right to fuss about their having severe reactions to vaccines.

North Americans have suffered no significant ill effects from the integration of these foods [GMOs] into their diet, a fact that Greenpeace and other advocacy groups studiously ignore. One suspects that if GM seeds had been invented by a socialist government, they would have applauded them.

So, you think these advocacy groups have some reason why they are purposely ignoring the "safety" of GMOs? They are involved in some great conspiracy to steer the world away from GMOs with their propagands, while ignoring the fact that GMOs are safe and help feed more starving people? These advocacy groups want people to starve! These advocacy groups are intentionally trying to keep the world-saving GMOs away from the public for some sinister reason.

That reads like a conspiracy theory involving the advocacy groups, doesn't it? Very similar to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory in fact. Same general theory, just different culprits.

Did you ever think your viewpoint has the same characteristics of conspiracy theories?

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport

orangeorchids has been removed from the Vaccinations forums for her/his posting behavior.

Just a general clarification for all members - if someone is posting in a manner that is clearly inappropriate for the forum it is fine to point them to the guidelines or let them know that they are posting in a support only forum. Sometimes people come into a forum and don;t know the guidelines or that they are posting i a support only atmosphere. But please leave the heavier moderation comments and directives to us. Flag a post you have concerns about and leave it to us to deal with. I think the mods do a pretty good job at acting on things that are reported - either directly on the thread or by PM. We appreciate the help and gentle reminders about rules are fine. But the rest should be flagged. Thanks!

Monsanto has come up with a reason to explain how their GM wheat infested a farm in Oregon. One possibility --they believe someone is trying to sabotage them! They have a theory about a conspiracy to harm their image. A conspiracy theory.

How did the GM wheat find its way to this Oregon field? Cross-pollination, which would be a big no-no? No, Monsanto's OWN testing found no evidence of contamination, so of course this means someone put the wheat in the field. Is Monsanto telling the truth? Did their tests really find no evidence of contamination? How the heck can we know for sure?

So, if the wheat did not get there on its own, how did it get there? Well, Monsanto believes it may be sabotage. Yes, since so many people hate Monsanto and GMOs, they believe someone may have planted the wheat in order to prove it does cross-pollinate and contaminate. Everyone, this might actually be the truth--someone might have planted it with ill intent. I'm not ruling it out!

Quote:

Some Monsanto opponents may have planted seeds they illegally saved from a field trial to cause trade disruptions and build opposition to gene-altered food, said Val Giddings, <----------this is a conspiracy theory, folks.

Who is Val Giddings? Val Giddings is a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit think tank. But did you know he also helped regulate engineered crops at the USDA for eight years in the 1990s?? Am I the only one who finds this .........fishy?

*False positives for Roundup Ready wheat are common in genetic testing unless investigators use a Monsanto-designed test that distinguishes the experimental wheat variety from residue that can be left by other Roundup Ready crops such as corn and soybeans, Fraley said.

False positives for the GM wheat are found, unless you use Monsanto's "special test"? And the special test finds there is no contamination, conveniently. Monsanto uses its own test to determine the results, which are in their favor, obviously.

What does all of this mean? It is my example of how Monsanto is using a conspiracy theory to explain how their GM wheat showed up on a farm where it shouldn't have been. Is Monsanto crazy for thinking there is a conspiracy against them? Or am I just crazy for thinking Monsanto is a horrible company that cannot be trusted?

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport

I think that people did have serious vaccine reactions 30 years ago, but far, far fewer than today. And I think that in today's climate, talking about vaccine reactions amongst other parents is a very scary thing, because there is a concerted effort to keep unvaccinated children out of schools, and to blame them for outbreaks of disease, and to vilify their parents. That climate did NOT exist 30 years ago.

Since my children have medically documented reactions and resulting exemptions, I'm not afraid to talk about it. So others who have had reactions and/or who delay vaccines are not afraid to talk to me about it.

I think maybe I was jumping to conclusions by assuming everyone is aware that they know someone who has had a vaccine reaction.

Thanks for asking that question--it made me think a little harder.

Climate is different from place to place though. Since we are talking about personal experience, I don't think it's really like that here. While I haven't heard about a vaccine injury experienced by anyone I know in real life, I do know several people who don't vaccinate, and back when my kids were younger and we were going to different mom/baby groups or playgroups or whatever, vaccines would come up from time to time, and here was nearly always someone willing to say that they didn't vaccinate or didn't do them all. There is certainly pressure to vaccinate, but it is not required for school attendance/no need to even get an exemption (I don't think the schools even know which kids are vaxed and which aren't until they do vaccines at school in fifth grade, and that is hep b and gardasil, so most who refuse one or both did get the earlier childhood vaccines). Doctors may lecture, but my friends who don't vax have never had any problem finding a doctor, and I've never hear of a doctor in my city refusing a patient due to vaccine status.

Only 1 in 10,000? Really? I know in small towns everyone tends to be up in everyone else's business, and 10,000 is a pretty small town... but not that small. Though maybe small enough to only have one elementary school so you would have known most of the children? But what about people in previous generations? If when you were a child the forty year old man living four streets away had had a brother with autism or the 80 year old grandmother had had a daughter with autism (whether or not these were actually labeled autism), how would you have known that?

Oh, my, I only just saw that little comment about "nasty eugenecists being in the anti-vaccine group."

Pers, I'm sorry, but I really think you forgot to mention the small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical pro-vaccine sentiment, who believe that the children who are disabled or killed by vaccines would have been disabled or died anyway even without vaccines.

Oh, wait, there were several pro-vaccine members here on MDC who said (incorrectly, I might add) that my children would doubtless have not been able to deal with VPDs anyway, so I had no right to fuss about their having severe reactions to vaccines.

How many of the people who say the children who were disabled or killed by vaccines would have died anyway are glad that this happened? How many think it is a good thing these children died because the human race is stronger without them?

I don't agree with the would have died anyway argument, but it is not eugenics any more than hearing of a homebirth death and saying that it could have happene in a hospital too is eugenics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird

Why do the nasty eugenicists have to belong to the anti vaccine group? Is it possible there is a small percentage of nasty eugenicists from the pro side as well?

By the way, I have to chuckle. The fact that you even mention "eugenicists" sounds mighty conspiracy-ish of you! After all, I thought they all disappeared after WWII. Whenever I've brought up the topic in the past, I was always ridiculed and called a conspiracy theorist. I guess you're only considered a conspiracy theorist if you think there are eugenicists on a specific "side".

Really? I can absolutely believe that there are people who don't believe eugenics exist since there are people who don't think the holocaust even happened. But it is certainly not a commonly held belief, Who has spent any time on the internet and not come across the idea that people with certain disabilities (or any disabilities) shouldn't be allowed to procreate or hasn't done a search for something innocent and by accident stumbled across a disgusting site promoting racial purity?

I'm sure there are eugenicists who are also pro-vaccine because they don't want there "genetically superior" kids to have to be sick I'm just not quite sure how you could argue that vaccines could be used to move forward on eugenic goals.

Unless of course you believe that Bill Gates is using vaccines to sterilize populations in developing countries, but then we are getting into conspiracy theory land.

I didn't learn about eugenics until I was 30. Hardly any in the general public know how pervasive it was, or how widely embraced. I was a loyal client @ Planned Parenthood YEARS before I knew my beloved Marget Sanger was all wrapped up in it. How did I know the succession of Kings of England in the Middle Ages but not about the wack ish that was perpetrated on my soil in the last 100 years for the bulk of my life?

I think a course like 'Western Eugenic History & the Dark Heart of Man' should be taught, maybe for the entire 10th grade year.

Climate is different from place to place though. Since we are talking about personal experience, I don't think it's really like that here. While I haven't heard about a vaccine injury experienced by anyone I know in real life, I do know several people who don't vaccinate, and back when my kids were younger and we were going to different mom/baby groups or playgroups or whatever, vaccines would come up from time to time, and here was nearly always someone willing to say that they didn't vaccinate or didn't do them all. There is certainly pressure to vaccinate, but it is not required for school attendance/no need to even get an exemption (I don't think the schools even know which kids are vaxed and which aren't until they do vaccines at school in fifth grade, and that is hep b and gardasil, so most who refuse one or both did get the earlier childhood vaccines). Doctors may lecture, but my friends who don't vax have never had any problem finding a doctor, and I've never hear of a doctor in my city refusing a patient due to vaccine status.

Only 1 in 10,000? Really? I know in small towns everyone tends to be up in everyone else's business, and 10,000 is a pretty small town... but not that small. Though maybe small enough to only have one elementary school so you would have known most of the children? But what about people in previous generations? If when you were a child the forty year old man living four streets away had had a brother with autism or the 80 year old grandmother had had a daughter with autism (whether or not these were actually labeled autism), how would you have known that?

Again, you ask some very good questions.

No, I wouldn't have known about the adults with autism who would have been diagnosed with something else and institutionalized. None of us would have.

BUT--the first wave of severely autistic children born in the 1990s (after the vaccine schedule significantly increased and the birth dose of hep B was begun) has now reached adulthood; those children have now aged out of the system.

If you are part of "the autism community," which is currently how parents and family members of autistic--particularly profoundly autistic--children describe themselves, this is something you pay close attention to. If you're not, if all your children are likely to be able to live independent, productive lives as adults, you wouldn't be paying attention to this or know about it.

There are no facilities equipped to handle the numbers of severely autistic adults that are now aging out of the system.

If the number of profoundly autistic people has remained constant, if they've always been with us, just squirrelled away in an institution with perhaps a wrong diagnosis, then there should be some place for profoundly autistic people to go, either for day therapy or if/when their parents pass away. Or even when their parents are still alive, but can no longer handle 24/7 care of a non-verbal adult in diapers with severe intestinal issues, autoimmune issues.

If those people were simply misdiagnosed before, then whatever facilities handling those misdiagnosed patients should now have FEWER of whatever those misdiagnoses were, and should have room.

They don't.

I called it "the first wave" of severely autistic children since the increase of the vaccine schedule, but it's more than a wave.

It's a tsunami.

And every family I know who has a severely or even moderately autistic child is absolutely terrified of what will happen to their child when their child becomes an adult.

How many of the people who say the children who were disabled or killed by vaccines would have died anyway are glad that this happened? How many think it is a good thing these children died because the human race is stronger without them?

I don't agree with the would have died anyway argument, but it is not eugenics any more than hearing of a homebirth death and saying that it could have happene in a hospital too is eugenics.

Really? I can absolutely believe that there are people who don't believe eugenics exist since there are people who don't think the holocaust even happened. But it is certainly not a commonly held belief, Who has spent any time on the internet and not come across the idea that people with certain disabilities (or any disabilities) shouldn't be allowed to procreate or hasn't done a search for something innocent and by accident stumbled across a disgusting site promoting racial purity?

I'm sure there are eugenicists who are also pro-vaccine because they don't want there "genetically superior" kids to have to be sick I'm just not quite sure how you could argue that vaccines could be used to move forward on eugenic goals.

Unless of course you believe that Bill Gates is using vaccines to sterilize populations in developing countries, but then we are getting into conspiracy theory land.

You actually brought up "the nasty eugenicists" yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pers

except then you've got a small number of nasty eugenicists who absolutely do not represent typical anti-vaccine sentiment (and may not even all believe that vaccines are dangerous) who think that by preventing the spread of "normal" childhood diseases such as measles we are saving lives of people who would succumb to it and that is a bad thing because overall it is getting in the way of natural selection and weakening the humans species as a whole. It's just a matter of if there are enough of those people saying don't vax because it weakens our species to skew things or not.

I guess I should have asked you for a citation for that. Can you find one?

Because I honestly have never seen anyone saying that they WANT to weed out anyone who would die from a vaccine-preventable disease.

I haven't seen anyone say that they WANT to weed out anyone who would die from a vaccine, either.

But I've seen an awful lot of posters on FB Proud Parents Who Vaccinate types of pages who all say, "well, if your child had a bad reaction to the vaccine, they never would have survived the disease."

The way I see it, besides for being totally wrong (since complications from disease and vaccines are totally unrelated), that is a mind-set along the lines of eugenics. It's saying that all the children who react badly to vaccines are expendable.

And it's all the more horrifying when these people insist that they don't believe that someone's child had a reaction, and they dogpile all over the parent. I saw one earlier this month where a grieving mother (whose baby died of SIDS right after a vaccine) started a foundation to help families who lost a loved one, to help them navigate the system while they're still in shock. The mother had been given a hard time about not vaccinating her youngest for pertussis. She responded by showing a picture of her youngest while he had pertussis (looked a bit feverish, but you'd expect that) alongside a picture of her lost child's ashes, saying that the reaction that child had to the DTaP was enough to scare her away from any further vaccines, but that she was not telling anyone not to vaccinate. (If you want me to give you more of a link to that, pm me. It's so awful, I really don't think it should be posted publicly here.)

And the absolute VICIOUSNESS of the comments from the provaccine parents absolutely floored me. I've never seen anything like that in my lifetime, from parent to parent. They accused her of lying about her child's death, to lying about her other child's pertussis, etc. Even though she made it quite clear that she wasn't calling for people to stop vaccinating, she was only explaining why she didn't any more, they kept saying that she was a rabid conspiracy theorist antivax campaigner, and a terrible mother, she was endangering the entire Western Hemisphere, and that she should have her other child taken away, except he was probably going to die a horrible death because he wasn't vaccinated, etc.

That kind of mindset seems to me to be less than a step away from the eugenics mindset you describe.

I've not seen it from the other side. I've seen people call for Offit to be vaccinated on TV with a thousand different vaccines at once, and I've seen (quite a lot of) people say they know/hope he burns in hell, but nothing like what those provaccine parents did to a grieving mother.